fix(review): avoid review effort boundary undercounts

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Persisted review-effort minutes are stored rounded, and the prior bandFromMinutes reconstructed effort as minutes / MINUTES_PER_EFFORT, which can map rounded boundary minutes down into the previous complexity band.
• This produced undercounted maintainer avgBand values when folding persisted minutes into aggregates, affecting analytics accuracy (non-security, correctness only).

Description

• Update bandFromMinutes to treat a persisted rounded minutes value as representing any effort up to minutes + 0.5, computing maxRepresentedEffort = (Math.max(0, minutes) + 0.5) / MINUTES_PER_EFFORT and returning bandForEffort(maxRepresentedEffort).
• Add regression unit tests to test/unit/review-effort.test.ts and test/unit/stats.test.ts that assert boundary-rounded minutes map to the higher possible band and that aggregates reflect that.
• Preserve existing estimateReviewEffort behavior and total minutes folding; this change only adjusts band reconstruction from persisted minutes.

Testing

• Ran targeted unit tests with npx vitest run test/unit/review-effort.test.ts test/unit/stats.test.ts --pool=forks, and both test files passed (43 tests).
• Ran static typecheck with npm run typecheck and verified git diff --check, both succeeded locally.
• Attempted full coverage with npm run test:coverage, but coverage remapping failed during generation with TypeError: jsTokens is not a function, so an unsharded coverage report could not be completed in this environment despite the targeted tests passing.
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate could not complete due to the registry returning 403 Forbidden from the audit endpoint in this environment.

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.68%. Comparing base (470d5fe) to head (bdc3644).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4139   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.68%   93.68%           
=======================================
  Files         384      384           
  Lines       36007    36008    +1     
  Branches    13213    13213           
=======================================
+ Hits        33733    33734    +1     
  Misses       1618     1618           
  Partials      656      656           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/review-effort.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-08 07:35:13 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This correctly fixes a real reconstruction bug: bandFromMinutes previously treated persisted minutes as an exact `effort/0.5` value, discarding the fact that Math.round collapses a whole range of efforts into one minutes integer. The new `(minutes+0.5)/MINUTES_PER_EFFORT` formula recovers the true supremum of that range — algebraically this is `2*minutes+1`, which is always odd and therefore never lands exactly on a BAND_MAX boundary (10/40/120/300), so there's no boundary-equality ambiguity introduced by treating an exclusive supremum as an inclusive bound. I traced the math by hand for all four new regression cases (5→2, 20→3, 60→4, 150→5) and the aggregate case ([5,20,60,150]→avgBand 4, total 235) and both check out, and CI is green on the exact commit.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• src/review/review-effort.ts:51 — the `+ 0.5` is derived from `MINUTES_PER_EFFORT` being the rounding granularity; a one-line comment spelling out the derivation (`round(effort*k)` inverse => `effort < (minutes+0.5)/k`) would save the next reader from re-deriving it, as flagged by static analysis.
• Consider exporting the derivation as a tiny named constant or comment (e.g. `ROUNDING_UNCERTAINTY = 0.5`) instead of the bare literal in bandFromMinutes, purely for readability — not required given the existing inline comment already explains intent.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 52 registered-repo PR(s), 43 merged, 496 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 52 PR(s), 496 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Kotlin, MDX, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 52 PR(s), 496 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review